by Jeroen Bouterse
The past years have seen many debates about the limits of science. These debates are often phrased in the terminology of scientism, or in the form of a question about the status of the humanities. Scientism is a notoriously vague term, and its vagueness can be put to the advantage of either side. If you position yourself among the ranks of those fighting against scientific overreach, it helps to define scientism as the easily refuted view that there is no knowledge outside of science; don’t the humanities produce knowledge as well? If, on the other hand, you believe that the methods and results of science can still profitably be exported to new markets, you will need as harmless a definition as possible – scientism becomes nothing more, for instance, than the claim that science encourages us to make an effort to understand things.
Are we bound to talk past each other, then, adapting our language to fit our intuitions? Not necessarily. Scientism can be the label for a well-defined philosophical position, and several articles in a recent volume on the subject manage to prep it for conceptual analysis. This is never a waste of time. However, interesting discussions can also take place in the grey zone between philosophical analysis and vague intuitions.
My favorite example of this comes from the 19th century. It concerns an exchange between Thomas Henry Huxley and Matthew Arnold. Neither of them use the term ‘scientism’, or provide a formal definition of the issue, but both manage in a delightful way to have a productive debate about the reach of science.
Huxley is now most famous as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’: the enthusiastic promoter and exegete of Charles Darwin. Darwin himself took care not to go beyond defending the content of his new theory of evolution, which was radical and controversial enough as it stood. To his friend Asa Gray he confessed that he found his knowledge of the more gruesome phenomena in nature hard to square with belief in a good and omnipotent God; but when he received letters from eager theology students asking him to clarify the implications of his theory for divinity, he tended, ever-politely, to evade them. Read more »

The career of Kenneth Widmerpool defined an era of British social and cultural life spanning most of the 20th century. He is fictional – a character in 
It’s a Saturday in May. I’m 17, and I’ve spent the morning washing and waxing my first car, a 1974 Gremlin. I’m so delighted that I drive around the block, windows down, Chuck Mangione playing on the radio. Feels so good, indeed. I’ve successfully negotiated a crucial passage on the road to adulthood, and I’m pleased with myself and my little car. Times change, though, and sometimes even people change. Forty years later, with, I hope, many miles ahead of me, I sold what I expect to be my last car.
I like playing Scrabble, and part of the reason is creating new words. That and the smack talk. I played a game with the swain of the day decades ago, and he challenged my word, which was not in and of itself surprising. As you may recall, if you lose a challenge, you lose a turn. With stakes so stupendously high, you mount a vigorous defense. I ended up losing the battle (and probably won the war) and thought no more of it. The ex-boyfriend brought it up a few years ago; I think he has put that on-the-spot coinage next to a picture of me in his mind. It is a shame that the word he will forever associate with me is “beardful.”


In the Municipal building on Livingston Street, two floors are reserved for Housing cases. In each court, dozens of people work and wait, a Bosch tableau with an international cast. HPD lawyers work the perimeter. They bring Respondents to the bench, confer with them in the hallway and negotiate with Petitioners on their behalf. HPD attorneys also lunch with landlord’s counsel. There is little ethical or proximate difference between Officers of the Court, save who signs their checks and the pay scales. To a person, they distribute a crushing weight, balancing malfeasance and negligence, plunder and systemic rot. The lasting effect of a day in Housing court isn’t the stipulation Management makes for repairs, nor the tenant’s payment (sometimes, less an abatement), it is feeling that force haul you down and watching others already borne off by it.



The controversy over the 
The main job of ‘culture’ in a modern society seems to be shielding people from the demands of morality. In its intellectual role it justifies inequality between citizens. In its national history role it gives citizens a delusional sense of their country’s significance and entitlement, followed by a dangerous sense of grievance when this isn’t sufficiently recognised by the rest of the world. In its identitarian role it deflects demands for justification into mere proclamations of fact: ‘Why do we do this or that awful thing?… Because shut up. It is who we are.’
On July 5 The Nation published a 14 line poem by Anders Carlson-Wee entitled “
That music and emotion are somehow linked is one of the more widely accepted assumptions shared by philosophical aesthetics as well as the general public. It is also one of the most persistent problems in aesthetics to show how music and emotion are related. Where precisely are these emotions that are allegedly an intrinsic part of the musical experience? Three general answers to this question are possible. Either the emotion is in the musician—the composer or performer—in which case the music is expressing that emotion. Or the emotion is in the music itself, in which case the music somehow embodies the emotion. Or the emotion is in the listener, in which case the music arouses the emotion.